Source: Joan Taber
(http://papersbyjoantaber.blogspot.com/2006/05/brief-history-of-esl-instruction.html)
A Brief History of ESL Instruction: Theories, Methodologies, and Upheavals
Since the 1940s, the definitive solution to successful ESL instruction has been discovered many times. Like bestsellers, pop stars, and ice-cream flavors, second-language theories and methodologies enjoy a few afternoons or years in the spotlight and then stumble into the dusk of old age. There is always another tried-and-true methodology from yet another expert theorist who may or may not have had first-hand experience learning a second language. Before the late nineteenth century, second-language instruction mirrored the so-called Classical Method of teaching Latin and Greek; lessons were based on mental-aerobics exercises—repetition drills and out-of-context vocabulary drills as well as lots of reading and translations of ancient texts. Brown notes that languages were “not being taught primarily to learn oral/aural communication, but to learn for the sake of being ‘scholarly’ or…for reading proficiency” (15). Theories of second-language acquisition didn’t start to pop up until the instructional objective became oral competence.
THEORY-FREE METHODOLOGY
According to T. Rogers, the very concept of method involves “the notion of a systematic set of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and language learning…” (paragraph 1). However, it is possible to develop a set of teaching practices and then go in search of a theory. It’s called having an agenda. But, for the sake of classification, let us include non-theory-based practices under the heading of methods.
Grammar-Translation
From the turn of the nineteenth century until the late 1940s, the grammar-translation method ruled. In the few instances of attempted coups, it lost some ground, but academia always beckoned it back. Despite its antiquity, or because of it, the grammar-translation method is still alive and well in language classrooms throughout Europe, Asia, and even in the Americas. It is easy to teach; it requires no more than the ability to memorize lists of isolated vocabulary words; and it aims low in terms of oral communication and aural comprehension—no one teaching or learning a target language is required to speak, pronounce, or even understand the spoken language. Because the target language is taught in the students’ native language, it is possible for students to have studied it for years without having been required to participate in the most elementary conversation. Indeed, the only real challenge confronting students and teachers in the grammar-translation classroom is overcoming boredom.
A typical one-hour class might begin with ten minutes of synchronized verb declensions. This might be followed by the instructor’s explanation of a particular grammatical feature of the target language. The instructor might then assign students a series of fill-in-the-blank exercises or sentence constructions that demonstrate the grammar point. Other features of the grammar-translation class include translations of literary passages from the target language into the native language, identifying antonyms and synonyms, drilling vocabulary words, memorizing vocabulary lists, creating sentences with the new vocabulary words, and writing compositions in the target language. Except for the repetition drills, most of the above work is written.
One might wonder why this obviously antiquated method is still used. Aside from the aforementioned virtue of being easy for both teacher and student, some claim it is the most effective way to introduce literature in the target language. That is, in learning how to read in the target language, students are exposed to a variety of grammatical structures, thousands of vocabulary words in context, and they learn to translate across linguistic borders. It does not
Most ESL instructors have witnessed the results of the grammar-translation method in students who have studied English as a foreign language in their native countries. They are often able to read and write English—sometimes better than native speakers—but they have had no experience listening to or speaking the language. In fact, ESL teachers face the challenge of defossilizing incomprehensible deviations in students’ pronunciation and inflections. Furthermore, grammar-translation students are accustomed to doing fill-in-the-blank exercises, learning grammar rules before applying them, memorizing lists of vocabulary words, and creating artificial sentences to prove their mastery of the lexicon and syntax. When they are exposed to more creative methods of language instruction, they often find it difficult to perform and, as a result, lament the ostensible lack of structure.
Some theorists maintain that because the grammar-translation method is not research-based, it has no academic status. But, as we know, one can always find a matching theory. Grammar-translation’s theoretical base might be called behavioristic—that is, habit formation via repetition and reinforcement. This is a stretch in the sense that the method is really centuries old, having been employed long before Pavlov began torturing dogs to measure their saliva output.
PRE-BEHAVIORISM
The first theory-based methods of second-language instruction started with François Gouin in the mid-nineteenth century. And even though his work did not win universal and lasting recognition, it set the stage for later theorists.
The Series Method
As the story goes, Gouin’s theory of language acquisition rose out of the ashes of his own failure to learn German. The modern observer can only wonder why he bothered spending a year in Germany sequestered in his study, memorizing thousands of verb declensions and vocabulary words, and all the while, avoiding conversation with native speakers of German. Imagine trying to learn a foreign language by shunning interaction with the very people who speak it. Well, it was the nineteenth century. Discouraged and effectively monolingual, he returned to his native France and discovered that during his twelve-month absence, his three-year-old nephew had become miraculously fluent in French. Wondering how a toddler could so easily out-perform his own considerable intellect, he decided to observe his nephew and other children who were in the process of acquiring language. As a consequence, he was able to theorize that the language one uses is related to one’s actions at the time of the utterance. On these bases, he developed the Series Method, which sought to teach second language by recreating conditions in which children learn a first language. Specifically, the teacher does an activity—walking to the door—and simultaneously verbalizes the process of walking to the door: “I walk toward the door. I draw near to the door. I draw nearer to the door. I get to the door. I stop at the door” (Brown 44). The student then mimics the instructor. As time goes on, the student is able to expand his/her linguistic skills: “Am I walking to the door?” “Did I walk to the door?” “I am thinking about walking to the door. “I am walking to the window.”
Although the method was deemed successful, it faded after a brief hour of glory and the good old grammar-translation method returned in full-dress regalia. Nonetheless, as shall see, the Series Method was gone, but would one day enjoy a resurrection of sorts. Gouin, if seems, was born in the wrong century.
The Direct Method
Second-language theorists maintain that the first real method of language teaching was the Direct Method, which was developed as a reaction against the monotony and ineffectiveness of grammar-translation classes. The Direct Method was the brainchild of Charles Berlitz, a nineteenth-century linguist whose schools of language learning are famous throughout the world. It borrowed and applied Gouin’s findings of the previous generation, seeking to imitate his naturalistic approach. In light of Gouin’s miserable failure in German, Berlitz wanted to immerse students in the target language. He believed, as did Gouin, that one could learn a second language by imitating the way children learn their first language; that is, directly and without explanations of grammatical points and using only the target language. Therefore, grammar was taught inductively. The objectives were speaking and listening comprehension, not translation; for this reason, vocabulary was introduced in context and through demonstrations and pictures; and an emphasis was placed on correct usage and pronunciation. Students learned to write by taking dictation in the target language.
A typical Direct Method class had few students. Students might first take turns reading aloud, preferably a dialogue or anecdotal passage. To test for understanding, the teacher would then ask questions in the target language and students would have to respond appropriately in the target language. Following the question-response session, the instructor might dictate the passage to the students three times. Students would then read the dictation back to the class.
The Direct Method was popular in Europe and the United States, especially during the first quarter of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, its very intensity and necessarily small class sizes made the method impossible for public schools. In addition, it was considered a weak method because it was not supported by heavy-duty theories and it depended too much on teachers’ ability to teach—God forbid—as well as their fluency in the target language. So, it was back to the old reliable grammar-translation method until behaviorism began to shine its light on the field of second-language teaching.
BEHAVIORISM
We can thank researchers such as Pavlov, Skinner, and Watson for behaviorism-based techniques employed in US classrooms as well as the Audiolingual Method of second-language instruction. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning is based on the concept that learning results from a change in overt behavior. Applied to language acquisition, one learns language by emitting an utterance (operant), which is reinforced by a response by another (consequence). If the consequence of the imitated behavior is negative, one does not repeat the behavior; if the response is positive, one repeats the behavior. Repetition then leads to habit formation. Thus, behaviorists agree with the likes of Francis Bacon and John Locke that one is born a tabula rasa, a blank slate, and all learning is the result of outside stimuli. From this thinking sprang the popular Audiolingual Method, which left grammar-translation by the wayside.
The Audiolingual Method (ALM)The Audiolingual Method was first known as the Army Method because it had been adopted by the military during the Second World War when it became evident that most Americans were hopelessly monolingual. ALM is not unlike the Direct Method in that its purpose is to teach students to communicate in the target language. The Audiolingual Method is a purely behavioristic approach to language teaching. It is based on drill work that aims to form good language habits, and it makes use of extensive conversation practice in the target language. Students enter the target-language classroom with their cognitive slates entirely blank—at least in theory—and they receive various linguistic stimuli and respond to them. If they respond correctly, they enjoy a reward and repeat the response, which promotes good habit formation. If they respond incorrectly, they receive no reward and therefore repress the response, which represses the response. Voila! Fluency.
Its theoretical support also comes from post-war structural linguists. Structural linguists analyze how language is formed, not in a historical-descriptive, or diachronic, sense, but as it is “currently spoken in the speech community” (Stafford paragraph 3). Language was now seen as a set of abstract linguistic units that made up a whole language system. The realization that all languages are complex, unique systems allowed linguists to understand the multifaceted, singular structure of English without comparing it to Latin, which had long been the paragon of excellence among prescriptive grammarians. This led to new thinking in terms of how language should be taught. Individual structures should be presented one at a time and practiced via repetition drills. Grammar explanations should be minimal or nonexistent, for students will learn grammatical structures by inductive analogy.
A typical ALM class consists of ten-minute drill periods interspersed with activities such as the reading and memorization of a dialogue. The instructor then examines a grammar point by contrasting it with a similar point in the students’ native language. (The teacher speaks in the native language, but discourages its use among students.) This is followed by more drills—chain drills, repetition drills, substitution drills. Target language vocabulary is introduced and learned in context, and teachers make abundant use of visual aids. Like its predecessors, ALM focuses on the surface forms of language and rote learning.
While some students, especially those who could memorize dialogues, did well in the classroom, they still were not able to use the target language with any proficiency.
UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
The 1960s shook up traditional thinking about the need to avoid errors and the idea that language learning was a matter of developing good habits by mimicry, repetition, and over-learning. Noam Chomsky entered the scene with a brand new view of first-language acquisition, which had a resounding effect on theories and methods of second-language acquisition. No longer did babies begin life with a tabula rasa; in fact, it was just the opposite—they are born with an innate system of grammar already fired up and ready to go. Behaviorism went right out the window. Humanistic thinkers such as Carl Rogers insisted that people are—well—people. Everyone is a unique individual who responds in her/his unique way to any given situation. No wonder no one had been able to learn a second language! Victims of grammar-translation, the Direct Method, and ALM had been tormented long enough. It was time to compensate for their suffering and devise kinder, gentler teaching methodologies.
David Ausubel was there to help. Influenced by Piaget and other cognitive psychologists, Ausubel theorized that the most important factor influencing learners is what the learner already knows (cf Bowen paragraph 3). He repudiated the old rote-learning methods in favor of meaningful, or relevant, methods of instruction. When material is meaningful, students are able to relate, or subsume, the new information to elements in their cognitive structure (Brown 84). Consequently, a new series of so-called “designer” methods of second-language teaching was developed during the 1970s (Brown 103). Their initial popularity was short-lived; but many linger on the periphery of current methodologies, and some still make cameo appearances in classroom mini-lessons. The underlying message in cognitive language learning is that individual learners must be gently guided toward their own comprehension of prescriptive rules.
Community Language Learning
Developed by Charles Curan in 1972, Community Language Learning dispensed with the hierarchical student-teacher relationship and adopted a counselor-client relationship. The idea was to eliminate any sense of challenge or risk-taking from the emotionally delicate client, which theoretically would free him/her to learn a second language without really trying. The counselor would translate and gently facilitate all learning activity. Community Language Learning was inspired by Rogers’ theory that all living creatures are motivated to live up to their potential; but, human beings are often blocked by environmental and personal problems. Once the problems are eliminated, the individual can live up to his/her potential. We will see that this thinking was further developed during the 1980s by Stephen Krashen in his examination of affective filters. In terms of second-language acquisition, certain affective factors—elements in the environment or in the student’s psyche—may cause a mental block that prevents input (target language) from reaching the language acquisition device” (cf Cook paragraph 5).